“There will be breakthroughs in battery technology, they’re on the horizon,” Akerson said. “We’re actually developing a car today which is really anathema to the way the auto industry works: We’re running a dual play on the technology to see which one will succeed. One will result in” a 100-mile range, “the other will be a 200-mile range.”

Akerson went on to say that fuel consumption can be reduced by 6.5 percent if the vehicle weight is cut by 10 percent. GM's goal is to cut weight by as much as 15 percent.

GM CEO Dan Akerson

Further, Akerson described GM's previous plans to put 500,000 green vehicles on the roads by 2017. It's doing this with its Chevrolet Volt, the new all-electric version of the Chevrolet Spark and a diesel version of the Chevrolet Cruze.

“Everywhere you look there are opportunities to seize the energy high ground,” Akerson said. “Indeed, our leaders have been presented with an historic opportunity to create a national energy policy from a position of strength and abundance. The pillars of such a plan must include energy diversity, so we do not become dependent on any one fuel or energy source.”

Last week, Akerson called for a consumer-driven national energy policy where he'd like President Barack Obama to appoint a Blue Ribbon Commission (which would lead to the development a 30-year policy framework for energy security with progress reviews every five years).

Conversely, you have a much higher risk of seriously injuring or outright murdering other people when you are driving the bigger car and you collide with them.

But then again, who cares about other peoples' health/lives? We're all selfish pigs around here, and proud of it... (right? Right-wing right all right. Let's just take it to the limit of absurdity, and skip to driving M2 tanks around on our grocery rounds.)

Anyway, aside from being a dangerous murderous hulk on the road, your braking distance goes up, the wear and tear you inflict on the roadways goes up (and so do commensurately your vehicle registration fees), your maneuverability goes down, your fuel economy suffers, you need to pay more for your tires and/or replace them more often, and so on. Meaning, it's not only an eminently pig-headed approach to vehicle choice (all other things being equal), it is also eminently uneconomic.

Granted, there are sometimes practical reasons for going with large/heavy vehicles (e.g. a need to carry or tow large loads). But *most* buyers/drivers of post-apocalyptic demolition mobiles are not guided by such considerations.

I'm only being as "constructive" as the age-old refrain of "heavier is safer", which is really just a marketing slogan designed to help push high-margin products. I'm more than a little weary of reading this same type of crap on every and any article that mentions (heaven forbid, touts) lighter and/or smaller cars.

And as for my hyperbole, it is only slightly tongue-in-cheek. Just consider the types who drive around in Hummers... 'nuf said.